Skip to main content

Full text of "Khalsa v. Associated Toronto Taxi-Cab Co-operative Limited (Co-Op Cabs), Board of Inquiry, May 1980 BOI 113"

See other formats


IN  THE  MATTER  OF  THE  ONTARIO  HUMAN  RIGHTS  CODE 

AND 

IN  THE  MATTER  OF  THE  COMPLAINT  OF  MR.  GURUFATHA 
KHALSA  OF  TORONTO,   ONTARIO,   ALLEGING  DISCRIMINATION 
IN  EMPLOYMENT  BY  ASSOCIATED  TORONTO  TAXI-CAB  CO- 
OPERATIVE LIMITED    (CO-OP  CABS) ,    56  0  KING  STREET  WEST 
TORONTO,  ONTARIO. 


DECISION 


MAY  16,  1980 


E.J.  RATUSHNY 
BOARD  OF  INQUIRY 


1 
t 


f 


IN  THE  MATTER  OF  THE  ONTARIO  HUMAN  RIGHTS  CODE 

AND 

IN  THE  MATTER  OF  THE  COMPLAINT  OF  MR.  GURUFATHA 
KHALSA  OF  TORONTO,    ONTARIO,   ALLEGING  DISCRIMINATION 
IN  EMPLOYMENT  BY  ASSOCIATED  TORONTO  TAXI-CAB  CO- 
OPERATIVE LIMITED    (CO-OP  CABS) ,    560  KING  STREET  WEST 
TORONTO,  ONTARIO. 

DECISION 

On  the  9th  day  of  January,   1980,   I  was  appointed  a 
board  of  inquiry  to  inquire  into  the  complaint  made  by  Mr. 
Gurufatha  Khalsa  that  he  was  discriminated  against  in  employ- 
ment because  of  his  creed  in  contravention  of  section  4(1) (a) 
of  the  Ontario  Human  Rights  Code. 

The  facts  are  not  in  dispute.     Mr.  Khalsa  is  a  Sikh 
by  religion  and  it  is  a  central  tenet  of  that  faith  that 
adherents  not  cut  their  hair  or  shave  their  beards.  Upon 
applying  for  a  position  as  a  taxi  driver  with  the  respondent, 
Mr.   Khalsa  was  informed  that  he  could  not  be  considered  since 
it  was  the  long-standing  policy  of  the  company  not  to  hire 
men  with  beards  or  long  hair.     There  is  no  suggestion  of  malice 
or  intended  discrimination  on  the  basis  of  religion  on  the  part 
of  the  respondent.     The  policy  was  considered  to  be  beneficial 
for  business  reasons  in  the  company's  relation  with  the  public. 

After  the  complaint  had  been  filed,    the  respondent 
sought  legal  advice  and  was  informed  that  the  discriminatory 
consequences  of  the  policy  to  persons  in  Mr.   Khalsa 's  position 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2013 


http://archive.org/details/boi113 


constituted  a  contravention  of  the  Code.     The  respondent  took 
a  conciliatory  position  and  was  prepared  to  settle  the  matter. 
The  respondent  indicated  a  willingness  to  display  in  a  conspi- 
cuous place  on  its  premises  a  notice  of  the  company's  intention 
to  abide  by  the  Ontario  Human  Rights  Code.     The  respondent  was 
also  prepared  to  send  a  letter  of  apology  to  the  complainants 
and  the  draft  of  such  a  letter  was  filed  with  the  board. 

The  respondent  was  prepared  to  receive  a  renewed 
application  from  the  complainant.     However,  the  complainant 
no  longer  wishes  to  apply  for  the  position.     Counsel  for  the 
respondent  argued  that  an  award  of  monetary  compensation  was 
not  appropriate  since  the  respondent  had  acted  without  malice 
or  intention  to  discriminate.     Neither  the  complainant  nor  the 
Commission  requested  that  an  order  of  compensation  be  included 
in  the  order. 

The  complainant  sought  to  be  represented  by  his  agent, 
Mr.   Gurutej  Khalsa  and  the  board  permitted  him  to  participate 
in  the  proceedings.     His  basic  objection  was  not  with  respect 
to  the  proposed  terms  of  the  settlement  but  with  the  basis 
upon  which  the  contravention  of  the  Code  had  been  established. 
He  asked  this  Board  to  decide  not  only  that  there  was  a  con- 
travention of  the  Code  in  relation  to  the  complainant  by  virtue 
of  his  religion  but  also  to  hold  that  the  term  "creed"  was 
broad  enough  to  encompass  any  conscientious  belief  that  the 
hair  of  a  person's  body  should  not  be  cut,  even  where  that 
belief  did  not  have  a  religious  component. 


-  3  - 


The  Board  ruled  that  it  would  be  inappropriate  to 
hear  representations  on  that  issue  in  this  case  since  to  do 
so  would  be  beyond  the  mandate  granted  by  the  Board's  Appoint- 
ment with  reference  to  the  provisions  of  the  Code. 

I  have  therefore  decided,  pursuant  to  section  14  c. (a) 
of  the  Ontario  Human  Rights  Code  that  the  respondent  has  con- 
travened that  Act.     In  view  of  the  position  taken  by  the  parties, 
I  order  that: 

(1)  The  respondent  display  in  a  conspicuous  place  on  its 
premises,  a  notice  of  the  company's  resolve  to  abide  by 
the  Ontario  Human  Rights  Code;  and 

(2)  The  respondent  send  a  letter  of  explanation  and  apology 
to  the  complainant  and  to  the  Commission; 

(The  letter  should  be  in  the  form  of  the  draft  letter 
which  was  discussed  by  the  parties  at  the  hearing  and 
amended  as  a  result) . 

I  am  grateful  to  counsel  and  to  Mr.   Gurutej  Khalsa 
for  the  direct  and  lucid  manner  in  which  they  expressed  their 
respective  positions. 

Dated  this  16th  day  of  May,  1980. 


/sh